Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

[Brucenkhamen]

How different is Biblical meditation to Buddhist meditation?

Are they compatible or mutually exclusive?

In the western/Christian tradition meditate means think, or ponder, or contemplate you could replace meditate with think in the above passages to get a clearer meaning. Buddhist meditation can include elements of that but it's not about that, we've adopted an english word that has quite a different meaning from the pali word bhavana, which means cultivate.

Could one be to "explore with an open mind and without attachment" vs to "study with full faith and without question"?

These are characteristics of each approach but I think there is crossover depending on how people choose to approach their practise.

[christiaan]

Christaan: Who is complaining? I am not. I just 'saw' you are far out of topic, meandering away.

I nowhere wrote I noticed Christians do see the soul or the I with their physical senses, the eyes.

What was the purpose of pointing out to me the topic of the thread then?

Quite simple, to point out that I was referring to your contribution, to see that as a complain is in the eye of the beholder.

a topic in which in your own estimation you had already digressed from by stating that Christians can see the soul.

I nowhere wrote Christians actually can see the soul with their eyes, they 'see' the soul in inner experience in active selfawareness, it is not physical seeing but spiritual seeing.

And it is no disgressing from topic since it illustrates the essential difference and incompatibillity.

Christaan: What you call 'defining difference' is in my view the essential difference of incompatibillity.

What’s the difference between a defining difference and an essential difference? I’d have thought the terms were synonymous, are you giving English lessons now?

No, you are doing.

I am certainly no 'Master' in English, not at all, so I would say the difference is essentially there, it is defining nothing.

Maybe a native or trained English speaker would not describe it the way I do. But when it is synonymous, it is ok to me.

Christaan: What you call the normal habitude (I tried to cite a part out of your text, making an error) could also be - for some people - the intuitive feeling and inner experience of autonomous humans.

Then I wonder: Is it the normal habit for Buddhists to think so?

When did I say “habitude”? Habitude is not a real English word, I used the word “assumption”. Though I must admit you’ve invented a clever compound word there, I might use it someday.

It definitely like it better than your other compound word “overhere”.

Probably most readers here, reading the complete text, noticed by their intuition, I made an error here, (and meant to write habit), and were so kind not to rebuke me regarding language, keeping in mind that it is not apreciated to do so in discussions on internet.

Christaan: I agree some Christians do live by the interpretations of those teachings out of habitude but there is a significant number of Christians that do question the main stream interpretations and come up with their specific approaches. So by the facts I know you are completely wrong in thinking Christians do not question, maybe the Christians you know do not, but most of the Christians I know and meet certainly do.

I didn’t say Christians did not question, I said something along the lines of it’s normal for people (other than Buddhists) to not question the assumption of a self.

"something along the line ?"

This is what you wrote:

<The normal human habit is to assume that the interconnected characteristics of the mind body process is a self or an owner or a soul. Buddhism seeks to question that assumption and therefore gain freedom from the suffering that results from the subjective identification with it.

Most other religions don’t question that assumption, Christianity included, however it is possible in identifying with a higher self or God that the identification with the believers own small self is loosened, selfless action is praised by all religion after all>

Christaan: Some Bhuddists do but certainly not all, many just copy and have no essential questions within their traditions.

This is of course true.

Christaan: A few lines later on you are writing about: the identification with the believers own small self is loosened(!) So no questioning. Where Christians see the Soul and the I as of main importance, you talk about identifications of small selfs.

Christians see God as being of main importance, not the soul, not their own small self,

That is what you do think. By my experience there are Christians who think God, I, (being the human unique spirit) and the soul, are ALL of main importance. In the spiritual world they maybe/probably are interdependent.

Christaan: It might be true that selfless action is praised by all religion, but I am told by Christians as confirmed in their books of wisdom by the teachings of Christ, for Christians selfless action comes out of the awareness, inspiration and power of the spiritual I within the soul of the human being.

And with this it is not compatible with Buddhism as is the question of this topic.

Well the Christians I know would say the inspiration of their selfless acts comes from God not the soul of the human being, they would probably consider anyone ascribing this inspiration as coming from the human soul as being a humanist not a Christian.

Where did I write the selfless acts come from the soul??? You not realy read my posts, cos then you would know I see the soul as the interface between body and spirit. Overhere you not even noticed I wrote "selfless action comes out of the awareness, inspiration and power of the spiritual I.

And as I wrote before the inner human soul being the interface is the intermediar where the action of the I is taking place.

Having said that there are some Christians are very humanist in their outlook and they are the ones who are more likely to find some compatibility with Buddhism.

Yes, there are among the diversity of 'Christians' also 'Christians' who are very humanist in their outlook, your right.

Christiaan: And probably at some point also this topic will be closed because of entering personal remarks (?) and I probably again will be accused and maybe even expelled from this forum for being overly wordy and making people weary.

You misrepresented my post on several points and I’m not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or haven’t invested the time and attention to read it properly. Jesus said you reap what you sow, on this point the Buddha would agree wholeheartedly.

You not only misrepresented my post on several points, you also misrepresented your own post by writing ' you didn't say Christians did not question' , and I would say beside the fact that your contribution shows an inability to stay on topic, a compulsion to bend a topic to your own agenda rather than discuss the question at hand in an open minded way, you prefer to bend discussions to the level of personal remarks - by starting to use the phrase 'complaining' and you are deliberately obtuse and not even took the time to read my - and your own former contribution - properly.

And what do you mean to express by your last refined remark?

Compassion and love of the I?

The mind ruled by concepts?

[Brucenkhamen]

Quite simple, to point out that I was referring to your contribution, to see that as a complain is in the eye of the beholder.

So how does pointing out the topic of the thread equate to referring to my contribution?

I nowhere wrote Christians actually can see the soul with their eyes, they 'see' the soul in inner experience in active selfawareness, it is not physical seeing but spiritual seeing.

And it is no disgressing from topic since it illustrates the essential difference and incompatibillity.

I didn’t think you meant Christians could see the soul with their eyes, however as written you post implied that Christians were aware of something that Buddhists were not aware of. I didn’t think even you’d be so arrogant as to suggest that either which is why I suggested that the word “believe” would be more appropriate than the word “see”, as I don’t think anyone would argue that Christians and Buddhists are aware of the same characteristics they just interpret them differently because what they believe about them is different.

However your follow up post was all about sight and seeing so you created an argument that wasn’t there, well done.

Probably most readers here, reading the complete text, noticed by their intuition, I made an error here, (and meant to write habit), and were so kind not to rebuke me regarding language, keeping in mind that it is not apreciated to do so in discussions on internet.

I’m sorry to hear your clever use of words was in error.

"something along the line ?"

This is what you wrote:

<The normal human habit is to assume that the interconnected characteristics of the mind body process is a self or an owner or a soul. Buddhism seeks to question that assumption and therefore gain freedom from the suffering that results from the subjective identification with it.

Most other religions don’t question that assumption, Christianity included, however it is possible in identifying with a higher self or God that the identification with the believers own small self is loosened, selfless action is praised by all religion after all>

You’ve proved my point, I did not say Christians don’t question at all, I said Christians don’t question the assumption that the interconnected characteristics of the mind body process is a self or an owner or a soul. So Christians don’t question this particular thing, not Christians don’t question anything.

That is what you do think. By my experience there are Christians who think God, I, (being the human unique spirit) and the soul, are ALL of main importance. In the spiritual world they maybe/probably are interdependent.

I’d be surprised if any Christians believed that the human soul/spirit was just as important as God.

Surrender to God and attributing ones inspiration to God rather than the human soul/spirit I know from experience is extremely important in evangelical Christianity, it’s not uncommon in more traditional forms as well, I think Canuck would agree with me on that.

Where did I write the selfless acts come from the soul??? You not realy read my posts, cos then you would know I see the soul as the interface between body and spirit. Overhere you not even noticed I wrote "selfless action comes out of the awareness, inspiration and power of the spiritual I.

And as I wrote before the inner human soul being the interface is the intermediar where the action of the I is taking place.

You wrote selfless acts come from “power of the spiritual I within the soul of the human being” notice the word soul in there? That’s pretty unambiguous. Now if you want to split hairs about soul vs spirit go ahead but I was contrasting the human soul/spirit with God so that’s irrelevant whether you use the word soul or the word spirit as from a Buddhist point of view both are characteristics of the human self view.

You not only misrepresented my post on several points, you also misrepresented your own post by writing ' you didn't say Christians did not question' , and I would say beside the fact that your contribution shows an inability to stay on topic, a compulsion to bend a topic to your own agenda rather than discuss the question at hand in an open minded way, you prefer to bend discussions to the level of personal remarks - by starting to use the phrase 'complaining' and you are deliberately obtuse and not even took the time to read my - and your own former contribution - properly.

I’d have thought somebody who considers themselves a freethinker would have more originality than to just do tit for tat, let me know if you need me to supply some more material.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Xangsamhua]

At least in Thailand and on this forum we can have a civil discussion and presentation of dissenting views.

The same thing in Pakistan could cost you your life.

http://www.ucanews.c...ster-shot-dead/

Every time I visit the ucanews site I see something depressing about how unwilling some (many?) people, not only those in power, are to allow freedom of expression and religious difference - especially in Pakistan, India (not all terrorists are Muslim), Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos and China.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

How different is Biblical meditation to Buddhist meditation?

Are they compatible or mutually exclusive?

In the western/Christian tradition meditate means think, or ponder, or contemplate you could replace meditate with think in the above passages to get a clearer meaning. Buddhist meditation can include elements of that but it's not about that, we've adopted an english word that has quite a different meaning from the pali word bhavana, which means cultivate.

Could one be to "explore with an open mind and without attachment" vs to "study with full faith and without question"?

These are characteristics of each approach but I think there is crossover depending on how people choose to approach their practise.

I think BK is spot on in his summary above.

With regard to the possibility of crossover, meditation practice is probably one area where Christians (at least the ones I know - Catholics) are quite open to being informed and instructed by people outside their tradition.

I wonder how this crossover connects with the suggestion that Buddhism is essentially oriented toward gnosis (knowledge, understanding) and Christianity toward agape (selfless love).

Buddhist practice is directed toward awakening the understanding of what really matters for a human being. Christian practice is motivated by the belief that God is present in God's creation, but especially in humans; hence, love and service are essential to the Christian life. However, Jesus and the early church and its successors did not really leave a methodology other than prayer, study and humility by which understanding of one's interface with the realities of everyday life and one's locus in the chain of cause and effect - past, present and future - could be developed. Buddhist meditation practice and the dhammic teaching that informs it provides for this need. Hence the Jesuits Sabaijai met learning meditation at Wat Bovornives would have found great benefit in what they were doing there.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

I think BK is spot on in his summary above.

Burger King?

With regard to the possibility of crossover, meditation practice is probably one area where Christians (at least the ones I know - Catholics) are quite open to being informed and instructed by people outside their tradition.

I wonder how this crossover connects with the suggestion that Buddhism is essentially oriented toward gnosis (knowledge, understanding) and Christianity toward agape (selfless love).

Buddhist practice is directed toward awakening the understanding of what really matters for a human being. Christian practice is motivated by the belief that God is present in God's creation, but especially in humans; hence, love and service are essential to the Christian life. However, Jesus and the early church and its successors did not really leave a methodology other than prayer, study and humility by which understanding of one's interface with the realities of everyday life and one's locus in the chain of cause and effect - past, present and future - could be developed. Buddhist meditation practice and the dhammic teaching that informs it provides for this need. Hence the Jesuits Sabaijai met learning meditation at Wat Bovornives would have found great benefit in what they were doing there.

Good summary.

One of the reasons some Christians can feel comfortable practising Buddhist meditation techniqies is that in the West it's not uncommon to for Insight Meditation or Mindfulness to be taught stripped of much of the Buddhist religious or cultural trappings.

I don't have a problem with this I know some Buddhists worry about people practising these techniques without a Buddhist world view but I don't think it matters as people can and should start where they're at. Many Buddhists don't start with a correct world view either but ones view changes as a result of practise, that's the point.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[canuckamuck]

I think Christians see a strong link between the term meditation and eastern religions. So there is a bit of hesitation to use the term. But the Bible suggests meditation frequently. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. (Psalm 104:34)

And Christians should indeed meditate, and there should be instruction as to how to meditate available from Christian teachers. But you don't really see it much.

Probably because there has been a lot of groups embracing aspects of other religions and in doing so dismissing some Bible doctrine in an effort to promote a more universal belief. This has created a lot of negativity with fundamental Christians. Even though meditation does not belong to any religion, Christians have dropped the ball a bit on promoting this as healthy form of practice and have failed to instruct about what Christian meditation should look like.

Also, Westerners are generally too wrapped up in everything else to allow themselves the time for meditation. I am sure this applies equally to Buddhism.

We are too busy to be useful, even to ourselves.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think Christians see a strong link between the term meditation and eastern religions. So there is a bit of hesitation to use the term. But the Bible suggests meditation frequently. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. (Psalm 104:34)

And Christians should indeed meditate, and there should be instruction as to how to meditate available from Christian teachers. But you don't really see it much.

Probably because there has been a lot of groups embracing aspects of other religions and in doing so dismissing some Bible doctrine in an effort to promote a more universal belief. This has created a lot of negativity with fundamental Christians. Even though meditation does not belong to any religion, Christians have dropped the ball a bit on promoting this as healthy form of practice and have failed to instruct about what Christian meditation should look like.

A good point, I recall from my Christian past there being quite a suspicion of the word meditation or anything that sounded like it had some connection to eastern religion.

Also, Westerners are generally too wrapped up in everything else to allow themselves the time for meditation. I am sure this applies equally to Buddhism.

We are too busy to be useful, even to ourselves.

There is truth in this, though ironically it's the meditation that westerners who are attracted to Buddhism are most into, in fact there is often a criticism that westerners are too attracted to meditation to the detriment of other aspects of Buddhism. I found myself once I started I was soon willing to dedicate months on end to intensive practise wheras I'm somebody who will hardly lift a finger when it comes to things like maintaining physical fitness for example.

[rockyysdt]

I think Christians see a strong link between the term meditation and eastern religions. So there is a bit of hesitation to use the term. But the Bible suggests meditation frequently. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. (Psalm 104:34)

And Christians should indeed meditate, and there should be instruction as to how to meditate available from Christian teachers. But you don't really see it much.

Probably because there has been a lot of groups embracing aspects of other religions and in doing so dismissing some Bible doctrine in an effort to promote a more universal belief. This has created a lot of negativity with fundamental Christians. Even though meditation does not belong to any religion, Christians have dropped the ball a bit on promoting this as healthy form of practice and have failed to instruct about what Christian meditation should look like.

If meditation has equal meaning to Christianity as it does to Buddhism then meditating would be compatible between the two.

Perhaps as Bruce has indicated, the English word has been incorrectly used:

quote: In the western/Christian tradition meditate means think, or ponder, or contemplate you could replace meditate with think in the above passages to get a clearer meaning. Buddhist meditation can include elements of that but it's not about that, we've adopted an english word that has quite a different meaning from the pali word bhavana, which means cultivate.

As meditation appears in the bible several times, what is the real Christian meaning of "meditation"?

I've experienced an aversion to meditation by a number of Christians over time.

Such comments include the danger of emptying ones mind which can allow the devil to enter, and that meditating on anything other than scripture is a dangerous distraction.

Edited March 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

If meditation has equal meaning to Christianity as it does to Buddhism then meditating would be compatible between the two.

Perhaps as Bruce has indicated, the English word has been incorrectly used:

quote: In the western/Christian tradition meditate means think, or ponder, or contemplate you could replace meditate with think in the above passages to get a clearer meaning. Buddhist meditation can include elements of that but it's not about that, we've adopted an english word that has quite a different meaning from the pali word bhavana, which means cultivate.

As meditation appears in the bible several times, what is the real Christian meaning of "meditation"?

I've experienced an aversion to meditation by a number of Christians over time.

Such comments include the danger of emptying ones mind which can allow the devil to enter, and that meditating on anything other than scripture is a dangerous distraction.

Well to be quite honest, you can add me to the list of Christians who do not have a strong grasp of the full definition of meditation. I think it is one of those words that has different meanings to different people. In the biblical sense I believe it means to concentrate and reflect upon the things of the Lord and Creation. It would be important in Christian meditation for it to be done from the perspective of God at the core.

The Greek to English lexicon gives three choices

1.to carry on a discussion, discuss

2.to contend with persistence for a point of view, dispute, debate, argue

3.to ponder various aspects of a matter, reflect,

I don't know how Buddhists meditate, but I would like to hear a description.

[rockyysdt]

Well to be quite honest, you can add me to the list of Christians who do not have a strong grasp of the full definition of meditation. I think it is one of those words that has different meanings to different people. In the biblical sense I believe it means to concentrate and reflect upon the things of the Lord and Creation. It would be important in Christian meditation for it to be done from the perspective of God at the core.

The Greek to English lexicon gives three choices

1.to carry on a discussion, discuss

2.to contend with persistence for a point of view, dispute, debate, argue

3.to ponder various aspects of a matter, reflect,

I don't know how Buddhists meditate, but I would like to hear a description.

Theravada Buddhism teaches the practice of awareness both in traditional "sitting" and throughout ones constant day.

Concentration of awareness (as if a third party) whilst continuing to be, to think, to live and to interact.

In other words, rather than just living your life as you do, you work towards continuously observing yourself living, without attachment.

An example is when you eat, rather than simultaneously watching television, talking with others, or lost in thought, you actually observe the act and experience of eating, Whilst chewing you remain attentive to the textures, the tastes, and the smells of every mouthful. Rather than gulping mouthfuls of food and then rushing of to your next task, you observe every moment of the experience.

Many go through life with a total lack of awareness of themselves and their feelings, often responding to life automatically.

Traditional sitting meditation allows you to become deeply aware of your body, your mind, your breathe and your being.

It also allows you to develop your concentration levels so you can develop your awareness through your wakeful day.

Over time, as you become more aware of what is actually happening, rather than living your life controlled by a series of automatic responses, you gain small insights, and begin to experience the present rather than dreaming or worrying about the future or living or being controlled by the past.

We can learn from the past, and we can plan for the future but life can only be experienced in the present.

Some, incorrectly interpret meditation as a clearing or emptying of the mind.

This is of course is a fallacy.

Meditation allows one to experience or be mindful of everything, mental, & physical which is occurring.

If it's true that mankind lives in Gods creation, then perhaps when one takes the time to be aware of oneself and ones surroundings on an ongoing basis (mindfulness/meditation), this would allow one to reflect on the Lords Creation.

Edited March 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Good description Rocky.

[canuckamuck]

Good description Rocky.

Yes, thank you for that. I see no reason that your definition of meditation would be an issue for a Christian.

[christiaan]

I think Christians see a strong link between the term meditation and eastern religions. So there is a bit of hesitation to use the term. But the Bible suggests meditation frequently. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. (Psalm 104:34)

And Christians should indeed meditate, and there should be instruction as to how to meditate available from Christian teachers. But you don't really see it much.

Probably because there has been a lot of groups embracing aspects of other religions and in doing so dismissing some Bible doctrine in an effort to promote a more universal belief. This has created a lot of negativity with fundamental Christians. Even though meditation does not belong to any religion, Christians have dropped the ball a bit on promoting this as healthy form of practice and have failed to instruct about what Christian meditation should look like.

Also, Westerners are generally too wrapped up in everything else to allow themselves the time for meditation. I am sure this applies equally to Buddhism.

We are too busy to be useful, even to ourselves.

Canuckamut, when you would like to read and be informed about meditation related to Christianity I think the books of Georg KUhlewind could be very informative.

One of his books is titled " The light of the " I " . Subtittle; Guidelines For Meditation.

The title of this small book is a title one probably cannot find in Buddhist literature, but if so I would be pleased to learn about.

Kuhlewind wrote many other books and some of the books that I value very much are " Doing the Truth " and " From Normal to Healthy" subtitle: Paths to the Liberation of Consciousness

He also gave lectures for a long period of time before he died and this has been one of the lectures, held in New York, to memorate this great philosopher. The introduction text informs quite well.

Fourth Annual Georg Kühlewind Memorial Lecture

Georg Kühlewind’s thought and pragmatism have a great deal in common. Pragmatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with being commercial or materialistic. Rather, both Kühlewind’s thought and pragmatism are a matter of activity, of “doing the truth.” In this presentation, Tyson Anderson will discuss Biblical and Greek notions of truth and their relation to pragmatism. He will show how Kühlewind’s discussion of “noticing” and forgetfulness of self are related to Pontius Pilate and truth in the gospels. He will also speak about the contemplative dimension of pragmatism—found in William James but especially in John Dewey.

Finally, he will show that “the linguistic turn” and pragmatism are connected to Kühlewind’s interest in language, an interest that led to his teaching that I-beings are “word-beings.”

Tyson Anderson is professor of religion and philosophy at Saint Leo University in Florida. He has had a long-standing interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner and Georg Kühlewind. He does research in issues pertaining to Buddhist-Christian dialogue and is currently investigating the liberal arts and their place in higher education.

There is ofcourse a strong link between western philosophies, religions, and meditation, The link is in my view: We are all humans and we do all have the potency of 'doing the truth'.

At this time of human evolution we can become aware the west and east now realy meet. One of the things showing this is the fact that Karma has arrived (again) in the focus of traditional Christian, western, cultures. (Plato before suggested reincarnation and so the possibillity of Karma)

Karma and reincarnation has been far away at the background but today it is accepted more and more as part of existence and part of Christianity as Kuhlewind elucidated in his books, lectures and meditation groups.

What ever people might think in terms of truth and untruth, the books of Kuhlewind are about - new- concepts in the minds of people, they are part of our world.

The " I ' is of main importance for Kuhlewind, and the soul, with its components of thinking (mind/brain), feeling (bloodsystem and digestive system) will (moving abbilities/limb system) are just the interface for the mind to 'connect the spiritual ' I ' to the physical world, not to end its suffering but to transform the world totally inspired by the beings of the spiritual world.

That shows why, also to my opinion, Buddhism and Christianity essentially are not compatible as long as Buddhism excludes the existence of the spiritual, (totally free from the physical world) " I "

Kuhlewind: "The disease of thinking deprives the soul of the possibility of correctly assessing its own situation, because thinking is the »eye of the soul« for modern man, that is, the clearest function of his consciousness. As we have seen, it is through thinking that we orient ourselves with regard to other functions of consciousness. When thinking becomes diseased, contemporary man loses his orientation. This means that he is moved and influenced by unclear, uncontrolled, impenetrable impulses."

[christiaan]

I think Christians see a strong link between the term meditation and eastern religions. So there is a bit of hesitation to use the term. But the Bible suggests meditation frequently. Let my meditation be pleasing to Him; As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord. (Psalm 104:34)

And Christians should indeed meditate, and there should be instruction as to how to meditate available from Christian teachers. But you don't really see it much.

Probably because there has been a lot of groups embracing aspects of other religions and in doing so dismissing some Bible doctrine in an effort to promote a more universal belief. This has created a lot of negativity with fundamental Christians. Even though meditation does not belong to any religion, Christians have dropped the ball a bit on promoting this as healthy form of practice and have failed to instruct about what Christian meditation should look like.

Also, Westerners are generally too wrapped up in everything else to allow themselves the time for meditation. I am sure this applies equally to Buddhism.

We are too busy to be useful, even to ourselves.

a correction almost at the end

Canuckamut, when you would like to read and be informed about meditation related to Christianity I think the books of Georg Kuhlewind could be very informative.

One of his books is titled " The light of the " I " . Subtittle; Guidelines For Meditation.

The title of this small book is a title one probably cannot find in Buddhist literature, but if so I would be pleased to learn about.

Kuhlewind wrote many other books and some of the books that I value very much are " Doing the Truth " and " From Normal to Healthy" subtitle: Paths to the Liberation of Consciousness

He also gave lectures for a long period of time before he died and this has been one of the lectures, held in New York, to memorate this great philosopher. The introduction text informs quite well.

Fourth Annual Georg Kühlewind Memorial Lecture

Georg Kühlewind's thought and pragmatism have a great deal in common. Pragmatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with being commercial or materialistic. Rather, both Kühlewind's thought and pragmatism are a matter of activity, of "doing the truth." In this presentation, Tyson Anderson will discuss Biblical and Greek notions of truth and their relation to pragmatism. He will show how Kühlewind's discussion of "noticing" and forgetfulness of self are related to Pontius Pilate and truth in the gospels. He will also speak about the contemplative dimension of pragmatism—found in William James but especially in John Dewey.

Finally, he will show that "the linguistic turn" and pragmatism are connected to Kühlewind's interest in language, an interest that led to his teaching that I-beings are "word-beings."

Tyson Anderson is professor of religion and philosophy at Saint Leo University in Florida. He has had a long-standing interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner and Georg Kühlewind. He does research in issues pertaining to Buddhist-Christian dialogue and is currently investigating the liberal arts and their place in higher education.

There is ofcourse a strong link between western philosophies, religions, and meditation, The link is in my view: We are all humans and we do all have the potency of 'doing the truth'.

At this time of human evolution we can become aware the west and east now realy meet. One of the things showing this is the fact that Karma has arrived (again) in the focus of traditional Christian, western, cultures. (Plato before suggested reincarnation and so the possibillity of Karma)

Karma and reincarnation has been far away at the background but today it is accepted more and more as part of existence and part of Christianity as Kuhlewind elucidated in his books, lectures and meditation groups.

What ever people might think in terms of truth and untruth, the books of Kuhlewind are about - new- concepts in the minds of people, they are part of our world.

The " I ' is of main importance for Kuhlewind, and the soul, with its components of thinking (mind/brain), feeling (bloodsystem and digestive system) will (moving abbilities/limb system) is just the interface for the connection of the spiritual ' I ' to the physical world, not to end its suffering but to transform the world totally, inspired by the beings of the spiritual world.

That shows why, also to my opinion, Buddhism and Christianity essentially are not compatible as long as Buddhism excludes the existence of the spiritual, (totally free from the physical world) " I "

Kuhlewind: "The disease of thinking deprives the soul of the possibility of correctly assessing its own situation, because thinking is the »eye of the soul« for modern man, that is, the clearest function of his consciousness. As we have seen, it is through thinking that we orient ourselves with regard to other functions of consciousness. When thinking becomes diseased, contemporary man loses his orientation. This means that he is moved and influenced by unclear, uncontrolled, impenetrable impulses."

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, thank you for that. I see no reason that your definition of meditation would be an issue for a Christian.

Yes, though for some only as long as they didn't know where it originated from.

[lungmi]

Christian meditation was dangerous for the meditators. In the The Criminal History of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia....lheinz_Deschner many examples.

Many meditators has been punished or oppressed by the Inquisition , the most famous is http://en.wikipedia....eister_Eckhart.

God as the Creator is the "Love Supreme" (Dhamma is the "Love Supreme" in Buddhist terms. (metta, karuna, mudita, upekha.)

(Wiki)

The central theme of Eckhart's German sermons is the presence of God in the individual soul, and the dignity of the soul of the just man. Although he elaborated on this theme, he rarely departed from it. In one sermon, Eckhart gives the following summary of his message:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature.

-------------------------

:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that Dhamma, (Tao) is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which the Dhamma has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to Dhamma (nibbana); and fourthly, of the purity of the Dhamma.

My translation hearing Tan Buddhadasa.

Edited March 4, 2011 by lungmi

[lungmi]

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that

Sakyamuni

and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

–

Schopenhauer

,

The World as Will and Representation

, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

[christiaan]

Rockyysdt:

Theravada Buddhism teaches the practice of awareness both in traditional "sitting" and throughout ones constant day.

Concentration of awareness (as if a third party) whilst continuing to be, to think, to live and to interact.

In other words, rather than just living your life as you do, you work towards continuously observing yourself living, without attachment.

An example is when you eat, rather than simultaneously watching television, talking with others, or lost in thought, you actually observe the act and experience of eating, Whilst chewing you remain attentive to the textures, the tastes, and the smells of every mouthful. Rather than gulping mouthfuls of food and then rushing of to your next task, you observe every moment of the experience.

Many go through life with a total lack of awareness of themselves and their feelings, often responding to life automatically.

Traditional sitting meditation allows you to become deeply aware of your body, your mind, your breathe and your being.

It also allows you to develop your concentration levels so you can develop your awareness through your wakeful day.

Over time, as you become more aware of what is actually happening, rather than living your life controlled by a series of automatic responses, you gain small insights, and begin to experience the present rather than dreaming or worrying about the future or living or being controlled by the past.

We can learn from the past, and we can plan for the future but life can only be experienced in the present.

Some, incorrectly interpret meditation as a clearing or emptying of the mind.

This is of course is a fallacy.

Meditation allows one to experience or be mindful of everything, mental, & physical which is occurring.

If it's true that mankind lives in Gods creation, then perhaps when one takes the time to be aware of oneself and ones surroundings on an ongoing basis (mindfulness/meditation), this would allow one to reflect on the Lords Creation.

When this is a good and more or less complete summary of Theravada Buddhism I do recognise all of it.

Compared to the description of meditation as done in the works of the meditation teacher Kuhlewind, being a Christian meditation, I was happy to discover meditation can be much more as to be found in Theravada Buddhism and any other ism. What doesnot diminish the value and meaning of Theravada Buddhist meditation.

But not only is the fundament of it broader, reflecting the essence of transformation of humanity and the old 'original' meditation of before, going back to almost 5000 years ago, long before Buddhism, to arrive at the situation we are today, also the technics, the 'methods' are more broad and inspiring.

Kuhlewind emphasizes the importance to investigate, to meditate, about thinking itself, to become aware of the nature, the structure and the meaning of thinking.

The thinking, as he describes, to find in the words we use, are the expression of the existence of the " I ".

That is why he writes the " I " being is word-being.

To him this is modern Christianity and by this it is not compatible with Theravada Buddhism.

But to know one has to become aware of the concepts of Kuhlewind that have become part of the world all people live in and to take care one does not stand stil at profound valuable manifestations in history being stages in the evermoving and transcending evolution of existence.

.

[christiaan]

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that

Sakyamuni

and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

–

Schopenhauer

,

The World as Will and Representation

, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

About Schopenhauer:

Life is a miserable affair; I have decided to spend mine by thinking about it.” Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1861) spoke these words in a conversation with Wieland at the beginning of his university years, and his world conception sprang from this mood. Schopenhauer had experienced personal hardship and had observed the sad lives of others when he decided upon concentrating on philosophical thought as a new aim of life. The sudden death of his father, caused by a fall from a storehouse, his bad experiences in his career as a merchant, the sight of scenes of human miseries that he witnessed as a' young man while traveling, and many other things of similar kind had produced in him the wish, not so much to know the world, but rather to procure for himself a means to endure it through contemplation. He needed a world conception in order to calm his gloomy disposition.

Christiaan:

He did not come to his personal 'philosophical truths' by clear and consequent thinking as Carl du Prels (1839-1899) but by subjective impulses.

He picked what was suitable to his life-experiences and he introduced Buddhism to the western world in philosophy, not realy an objective proof when we compare his philosophy, and the origin of it, with the important philosophies that followed.

[christiaan]

To write no one can definitively pronounce the compatibillity or mutual exclusivity is maybe just an attempt to reduce it to nothing and to avoid answering the question of the topic.?

Not at all. That *is* the answer, as far as the reality of the matter is concerned.

People have debated such issues for centuries, no doubt, and no definitive comparative summary has ever been reached. Nor will it, as it's a matter of opinion and interpretation.

And why should a definitive answer be given? From a practical perspective, it is of little use to either a Christian or a Buddhist, who have already defined what their methodology is about to their own respective satisfaction.

To stand outside a belief system and analyse it is not the same thing as understanding the system, just as analysing the sounds of Latin or Pali without understanding the actual meanings of the words does not demonstrate an understanding of the semantics of those languages.

Not being a Christian, I will never understand much of what is written in the Bible. I have no idea, from reading about it in the Bible, what 'the kingdom of heaven' means, for example. If I were a practising, believing Christian, there's a chance I might.

To understand both religions without practising either, and then to pronounce them compatible or incompatible, is a tall order.

The Christian methodology, as far as there has been a methodology, did change and especially in the modern times it did and still is changing.

Just look how many different "Christian Churches" there are in the world.

Everything told or written out of a religion about this religion or out of a philosophy about this philosophy is thought, ideas, expressed by words.

Every word has a meaning. And it is by intuitive thinking we can understand, receive meaning.

The thinking is the spiritual eye' by wich we see meaning, the living idea within.

In thinking one can stand 'outside' a religion or a philosophy and understand it by thinking about the ideas manifested by the religion or philosophy.

Many philosophers build their own philosophy out of understanding, and then rejecting or accepting, other philosophies.

It has been contributed over here there are many respected western specialists in Buddhism, professors at universities, who are no Buddhists themself, it is even possible they are Christians or Atheists.

So one can not claim standing outside a religion or philosophy makes it impossible to understand it.

If that was true, science would not be possible.

Everything brought in the world by words is understandable to any healthy thinking person as long as the words tell in a healthy way about the penomenon it is referring to.

Only phenomenons that are secret, not openly manifested by words to the world, are not attainable by the mind.

By objective thinking we can come to see the possibillity of compatibillity.

[canuckamuck]

Many philosophers build their own philosophy out of understanding, and then rejecting or accepting, other philosophies.

It has been contributed over here there are many respected western specialists in Buddhism, professors at universities, who are no Buddhists themself, it is even possible they are Christians or Atheists.

So one can not claim standing outside a religion or philosophy makes it impossible to understand it.

If that was true, science would not be possible.

It is also very possible for philosophers and experts to be completely wrong and still become the basis of proof for the next guy, simply on the basis that they published something crediting lots of sources. This is the circularity of academic agreement.

Having head knowledge of a thing is only one level of understanding. Finite heads imagining the infinite.

[lungmi]

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that

Sakyamuni

and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

–

Schopenhauer

,

The World as Will and Representation

, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

About Schopenhauer:

Life is a miserable affair; I have decided to spend mine by thinking about it." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1861) spoke these words in a conversation with Wieland at the beginning of his university years, and his world conception sprang from this mood. Schopenhauer had experienced personal hardship and had observed the sad lives of others when he decided upon concentrating on philosophical thought as a new aim of life. The sudden death of his father, caused by a fall from a storehouse, his bad experiences in his career as a merchant, the sight of scenes of human miseries that he witnessed as a' young man while traveling, and many other things of similar kind had produced in him the wish, not so much to know the world, but rather to procure for himself a means to endure it through contemplation. He needed a world conception in order to calm his gloomy disposition.

Christiaan:

He did not come to his personal 'philosophical truths' by clear and consequent thinking as Carl du Prels (1839-1899) but by subjective impulses.

He picked what was suitable to his life-experiences and he introduced Buddhism to the western world in philosophy, not realy an objective proof when we compare his philosophy, and the origin of it, with the important philosophies that followed.

Argumentum ad hominem - classical logic fallacy.

[christiaan]

Many philosophers build their own philosophy out of understanding, and then rejecting or accepting, other philosophies.

It has been contributed over here there are many respected western specialists in Buddhism, professors at universities, who are no Buddhists themself, it is even possible they are Christians or Atheists.

So one can not claim standing outside a religion or philosophy makes it impossible to understand it.

If that was true, science would not be possible.

It is also very possible for philosophers and experts to be completely wrong and still become the basis of proof for the next guy, simply on the basis that they published something crediting lots of sources. This is the circularity of academic agreement.

Having head knowledge of a thing is only one level of understanding. Finite heads imagining the infinite.

Very true, so this means referring to an opinion, a philosophy, a religion or a theorem doesnot proof anything. Only by thinking in a healthy, logical and consequent way one can discover the truth about all phenomena. I do not understand what you mean by "Finite heads imagining infinite" , I would say that is no good philosophy, Finit things or phenomena cannot imagine infinite. Finit things can only experience finit things. I would rather say the infinite can only see, experience, the infinit. The spiritual " I " ,being infinit, not depending on a physical existence to exist as awareness in awareness, spiritual can see the infinit because it is part of the ever transcending and dynamic spiritual world itself.

The thinking of the finit, impernament mind being the brain of the human can take people to experience the finit and by that uplift the veil of duality to experience enlightment.

This is done by the " I " of a human since the thinking is part of the soul, the interface where the physical existence and the spiritual " I " meet eachother and duality is uplifted in " I " activity.

[canuckamuck]

Very true, so this means referring to an opinion, a philosophy, a religion or a theorem doesnot proof anything. Only by thinking in a healthy, logical and consequent way one can discover the truth about all phenomena. I do not understand what you mean by "Finite heads imagining infinite" , I would say that is no good philosophy, Finit things or phenomena cannot imagine infinite. Finit things can only experience finit things. I would rather say the infinite can only see, experience, the infinit. The spiritual " I " ,being infinit, not depending on a physical existence to exist as awareness in awareness, spiritual can see the infinit because it is part of the ever transcending and dynamic spiritual world itself.

The thinking of the finit, impernament mind being the brain of the human can take people to experience the finit and by that uplift the veil of duality to experience enlightment.

This is done by the " I " of a human since the thinking is part of the soul, the interface where the physical existence and the spiritual " I " meet eachother and duality is uplifted in " I " activity.

Everything you just said, is a guess.

[Xangsamhua]

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that

Sakyamuni

and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

–

Schopenhauer

,

The World as Will and Representation

, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII

About Schopenhauer:

Life is a miserable affair; I have decided to spend mine by thinking about it." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1861) spoke these words in a conversation with Wieland at the beginning of his university years, and his world conception sprang from this mood. Schopenhauer had experienced personal hardship and had observed the sad lives of others when he decided upon concentrating on philosophical thought as a new aim of life. The sudden death of his father, caused by a fall from a storehouse, his bad experiences in his career as a merchant, the sight of scenes of human miseries that he witnessed as a' young man while traveling, and many other things of similar kind had produced in him the wish, not so much to know the world, but rather to procure for himself a means to endure it through contemplation. He needed a world conception in order to calm his gloomy disposition.

Christiaan:

He did not come to his personal 'philosophical truths' by clear and consequent thinking as Carl du Prels (1839-1899) but by subjective impulses.

He picked what was suitable to his life-experiences and he introduced Buddhism to the western world in philosophy, not realy an objective proof when we compare his philosophy, and the origin of it, with the important philosophies that followed.

Arthur Schopenhauer is the most impressive philosopher I've read, regardless of his personal impulsiveness or crankiness or whatever. When did being pessimistic become a detriment to one's philosophical credibility? He wasn't seeking political endorsement or an academic post (which would require government approval at that time). Having an independent income meant he could devote his life to thinking and writing and reading (though he warned against too much of the latter). He was actually a very sociable man and people would arrive early to join him at the common table at the hotel where he lunched every day.

His main eastern influence was not so much Buddhist but Vedantic. It was said that he read the Upanishads every day. However, he knew something of Buddhism and spoke admiringly of it.

I don't believe that he was as pessimistic as people say he was. I don't have the text here, but in the essays gathered as "Essays and Aphorisms" he spoke in the latter part of his life of the consolation he derived in knowing that we are not obliterated in death, that we simply return to the life-force that he named the "Will". We become a part of the generative dynamism that energizes the world of matter (he was otherwise a materialist). That seemed quite satisfactory for him.

His negative views on things like academic obfuscation, obsequiousness, hypocrisy, snobbery, bourgeois insensitivity, etc. are expressed in ways that would make their targets regard him as a curmudgeon (admittedly he does go on a bit); however, he spoke up for the poor and mistreated - including animals. He had little time for middle-class women, who he regarded as irretrievably self-absorbed and superficial, but he spoke out strongly in defence of poor women who were driven to sell their bodies to the husbands of those self-righteous bourgeois women who condemned their unfortunate and exploited sisters.

Some Schopenhauer quotes: http://www.goodreads...ur_Schopenhauer

Edited March 5, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

Christian meditation was dangerous for the meditators. In the The Criminal History of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia....lheinz_Deschner many examples.

Many meditators has been punished or oppressed by the Inquisition , the most famous is http://en.wikipedia....eister_Eckhart.

God as the Creator is the "Love Supreme" (Dhamma is the "Love Supreme" in Buddhist terms. (metta, karuna, mudita, upekha.)

(Wiki)

The central theme of Eckhart's German sermons is the presence of God in the individual soul, and the dignity of the soul of the just man. Although he elaborated on this theme, he rarely departed from it. In one sermon, Eckhart gives the following summary of his message:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature.

-------------------------

:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that Dhamma, (Tao) is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which the Dhamma has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to Dhamma (nibbana); and fourthly, of the purity of the Dhamma.

My translation hearing Tan Buddhadasa.

The Sufi masters have something to say, too.

"The brook, the river, the drop, the sea, the bubble, all in one voice say: Water, we are water"

-Shah Angha

"The oneness of diversity

Not oneness locked in singularity"

- Farid ad-Din Attar

[Xangsamhua]

It is also very possible for philosophers and experts to be completely wrong and still become the basis of proof for the next guy, simply on the basis that they published something crediting lots of sources. This is the circularity of academic agreement.

Having head knowledge of a thing is only one level of understanding. Finite heads imagining the infinite.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same door where in I went.

With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,

And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;

And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--

"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."

Into this Universe, and Why not knowing

Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;

And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,

I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.

What, without asking, hither hurried Whence?

And, without asking, Whither hurried hence!

Oh, many a Cup of this forbidden Wine

Must drown the memory of that insolence!

From The Rubaiyat (1120 AD) by Omar Khayyam

(Remember that the "forbidden wine" is the truth revealed by the Sufi practice of contemplation and concentration on, e.g. the names of God. The "tavern", often referred to in Sufi writing, is being in the presence of God, or in oneness with God.)

However, while it's OK to be skeptical of academic fashion and dominant paradigms, I wouldn't cast them aside whenever they challenge the beliefs I've worked hard to acquire. All "knowledge" (apart from tautologies) is tentative, whether based on scientific method, personal experience, anecdotes, or faith in an exemplary teacher, but as a westerner I prefer the outcomes of scientific investigation and peer-review (though the latter can be manipulated, or at least influenced by dominant figures: see http://www.spectator...g-the-ice.thtml)

[lungmi]

It is also very possible for philosophers and experts to be completely wrong and still become the basis of proof for the next guy, simply on the basis that they published something crediting lots of sources. This is the circularity of academic agreement.

Having head knowledge of a thing is only one level of understanding. Finite heads imagining the infinite.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same door where in I went.

With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,

And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;

And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--

"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."

---------------------------

Taoist version from Tschuang Tse: (I quote by memory)

A taoist wise man came to the funerals of a fellow.

HA HA, and walked way.

Why HA, HA ?

HA for his birth, HA for his death.

Happy to be born, happy to die, it's the same door.

[lungmi]

Christian meditation was dangerous for the meditators. In the The Criminal History of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia....lheinz_Deschner many examples.

Many meditators has been punished or oppressed by the Inquisition , the most famous is http://en.wikipedia....eister_Eckhart.

God as the Creator is the "Love Supreme" (Dhamma is the "Love Supreme" in Buddhist terms. (metta, karuna, mudita, upekha.)

(Wiki)

The central theme of Eckhart's German sermons is the presence of God in the individual soul, and the dignity of the soul of the just man. Although he elaborated on this theme, he rarely departed from it. In one sermon, Eckhart gives the following summary of his message:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that God is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which God has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to God; and fourthly, of the purity of the divine nature.

-------------------------

:

When I preach, I usually speak of detachment and say that a man should be empty of self and all things; and secondly, that he should be reconstructed in the simple good that Dhamma, (Tao) is; and thirdly, that he should consider the great aristocracy which the Dhamma has set up in the soul, such that by means of it man may wonderfully attain to Dhamma (nibbana); and fourthly, of the purity of the Dhamma.

My translation hearing Tan Buddhadasa.

The Sufi masters have something to say, too.

"The brook, the river, the drop, the sea, the bubble, all in one voice say: Water, we are water"

-Shah Angha

"The oneness of diversity

Not oneness locked in singularity"

- Farid ad-Din Attar

Right.

Here you have the signers of the declaration of World Ethos in 1993. There are some representives from the Sufi-group, not specially named.

------------------------

Bahai

Juana Conrad, Jacqueline Delahunt, Dr. Wilma Ellis, Charles Nolley, R. Leilani Smith, Yael Wurmfeld.

Brahma Kumaris

B. K. Jagdish Chander Hassija, B. K. Dadi Prakashmani.

Buddhismus

Rev. Koshin Ogui, Sensei. Mahayana: Rev. Chung Ok Lee. Theravada: Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, Preah Maha Ghosananda, Ajahn Phra Maha Surasak Jivanando, Dr. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, Luang Poh Panyananda, Ven. Achahn Dr. Chuen Phangcham, Ven. Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara, Ven. Dr. Mapalagama Wipulasara Maha Thero. Vajrayana: S. H. Der XIV. Dalai Lama. Zen: Prof. Masao Abe, Zen Master Seung Sahn, Rev. Samu Sunim.

Christentum

Blouke Carus, Dr. Yvonne Delk. Anglikanisch: Rev. Marcus Braybrooke, James Parks Morton. Orthodox: Maria Svolos Gebhard. Protestantisch: Dr. Thelma Adair, Martti Ahtisaari, Rev. Wesley Ariarajah, Dr. Gerald O. Barney, Dr. Nelvia M. Brady, Dr. David Breed, Rev. John Buchanan, Bischof R. Sheldon Duecker, Prof. Diana L. Eck, Dr. Leon D. Finney, Jr., Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr., Bischof Frederick C. James, Erzbischof Mikko Juva, Prof. James Nelson, Dr. David Ramage, Jr., Robert Reneker, Rev. Dr. Syngman Rhee, Rev. Margaret Orr Thomas, Prof. Carl Friedrich v. Weizsäcker, Prof. Henry Wilson, Rev. Addie Wyatt. Römisch-katholisch: Rev. Thomas A. Baima, Kardinal Joseph Bernardin, Pere Pierre- Francois de Bethune, Schwester Joan M. Chatfield MM, Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh CSC, Abbot Timothy Kelly OSB, Jim Kenney, Prof. Hans Küng, Dolores Leakey, Schwester Joan Monica McGuire OP, Rev. Maximilian Mizzi, Dr. Robert Muller, Rev. Albert Nambiaparambil, Bischof Placido Rodriguez, Bischof Willy Romelus, Dorothy Savage, Bruder David Steindl-Rast OSB, Bruder Wayne Teasdale.

Eingeborenen-Religionen

H. I. G. Bambi Baaba. Akuapim: Nana Apeadu. Yoruba: S. K. H. Oseijeman Adefunmi I, Baba Metahochi Kofi Zannu. Amerikanische Eingeborene: Archie Mosay, Burton Pretty On Top, Peter V. Catches.

Hinduismus

Dr. M. Aram, Jayashree Athavale-Talwarkar, S. H. Swami Chidananda Saraswati, Swami Chidananda Saraswati Muniji, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Sadguru Sant Keshavadas, P. V. Krishnayya, Dr. Lakshmi Kumari, Amrish Mahajan, Dr. Krishna Reddy, Prof. V. Madhusudan Reddy, Swami Satchidananda, S. H. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, S. H. Dr. Bala Siva Yogindra Maharaj. Vedanta: Pravrajika Amalaprana, Pravrajika Prabuddhaprana, Pravrajika Vivekaprana.

Jainismus

Dr. Rashmikant Gardi. Digambar: Narendra P. Jain. Shwetambar: S. H. Shri Atmanandji, Dipchand S. Gardi, S. E. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, S. H. Acharya Sushil Kumarji Maharaj.

Judentum

Helen Spector. Konservativ: Prof. Susannah Heschel. Reformerisch: Rabbi Herbert Bronstein, Norma U. Levitt, Rabbi Herman Schaalman, Dr. Howard A. Sulkin. Orthodox: Prof. Ephraim Isaac.

Islam

Tan Sri Dato Seri Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul-Hamid, Dr. Qazi Ashfaq Ahmed, Hamid Ahmed, Mazhar Ahmed, Hon. Louis Farrakhan, Dr. Hamid Abdul Hai, Mohammed A. Hai, Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah, Dr. Aziza al-Hibri, Dr. Asad Husain, Dato Dr. Haji Ismail bin Ibrahim, Dr. Irfan Ahmat Khan, Qadir H. Khan, Dr. Abdel Rahman Osman. Schiitisch: Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Sunnitisch: Imam Dawud Assad, Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, Hon. Syed Shahabuddin.

Neu-Heiden

Rev. Baroness Cara-Marguerite-Drusilla, Rev. Deborah Ann Light, Lady Olivia Robertson.

Sikhs

Siri Singh Sahib Bhai Sahib Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji, Bhai Mohinder Singh, Dr. Mehervan Singh, Hardial Singh, Indarjit Singh, Singh Sahib Jathedar Manjit Singh, Dr. Balwant Singh Hansra.

Taoisten

Chungliang Al Huang.

Theosophen

Radha Burnier.

Zoroastrier

Dastoor Dr. Kersey Antia, Dr. Homi Dhalla, Dastoor Dr. Kaikhusroo Minocher JamaspAsa, Dastoor Jehangir Oshidari, Rohinton Rivetna, Homi Taleyarkhan, Dastoor Kobad Zarolia, Dastoor Mehraban Zarthosty.

Interreligiöse Organisationen

Karl Berolzheimer, Dr. Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, Ma Jaya Bhagavati, Peter Laurence, Dr. Karan Singh, John B. Taylor, Rev. Robert Traer, Dr. William F. Vendley.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, what is the meaning of compatibility?